|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2018 1:29:15 GMT -5
And that's not even to mention the similarities between Christian prayer and Buddhist or Hindu or even secular meditation. During the RCIA sessions a seminarian explained a practice where they pray over a book in order to better discern the meaning. Koan study much? Hi Laffy! How are you doing? Hey, great Raj, thanks for askin'! Been losin' some weight by fasting and no-carbs, went to church tonight and had a good "meditation" during the communion. Funny story: when we got there the service had been moved because a local dignitary had passed away and they needed the large space to accomadate all the people in his visitation. Now, what was funny was this: the Catholics all over the world share the same 3 bible readings during each service. One of them this week was "camel through the eye of a needle", and the man who passed away owned a large, modern-day supermarket. We went for a long walk along the canal after, it was a cool, sunny autumn evening with lots of color on the leaves, and no wind, so the water on the canal was like glass. So how you been man? How's fatherhood treatin' ya'?
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 15, 2018 1:42:14 GMT -5
Hi Laffy! How are you doing? Hey, great Raj, thanks for askin'! Been losin' some weight by fasting and no-carbs, went to church tonight and had a good "meditation" during the communion. Funny story: when we got there the service had been moved because a local dignitary had passed away and they needed the large space to accomadate all the people in his visitation. Now, what was funny was this: the Catholics all over the world share the same 3 bible readings during each service. One of them this week was "camel through the eye of a needle", and the man who passed away owned a large, modern-day supermarket. We went for a long walk along the canal after, it was a cool, sunny autumn evening with lots of color on the leaves, and no wind, so the water on the canal was like glass. You never fail to confuse me, but that's what I like you! Why did you go to church while you are being an atheist? Just to enlighten the people by saying to them "Hey dude! God has fallen into the dream"? That's awesome! The movement of the baby is always likable one, but unfortunately I am not with her, I am looking at her through video call!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2018 1:53:05 GMT -5
Hey, great Raj, thanks for askin'! Been losin' some weight by fasting and no-carbs, went to church tonight and had a good "meditation" during the communion. Funny story: when we got there the service had been moved because a local dignitary had passed away and they needed the large space to accomadate all the people in his visitation. Now, what was funny was this: the Catholics all over the world share the same 3 bible readings during each service. One of them this week was "camel through the eye of a needle", and the man who passed away owned a large, modern-day supermarket. We went for a long walk along the canal after, it was a cool, sunny autumn evening with lots of color on the leaves, and no wind, so the water on the canal was like glass. You never fail to confuse me, but that's what I like you! Why did you go to church while you are being an atheist? Just to enlighten the people by saying to them "Hey dude! God has fallen into the dream"? That's awesome! The movement of the baby is always likable one, but unfortunately I am not with her, I am looking at her through video call! That sucks! I'm sure you miss them and that they miss you, and I hope you can reunite permanently soon.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Oct 15, 2018 2:35:45 GMT -5
You never fail to confuse me, but that's what I like you! Why did you go to church while you are being an atheist? Just to enlighten the people by saying to them "Hey dude! God has fallen into the dream"? That's awesome! The movement of the baby is always likable one, but unfortunately I am not with her, I am looking at her through video call! That sucks! I'm sure you miss them and that they miss you, and I hope you can reunite permanently soon. Yes Bill! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2018 9:30:12 GMT -5
Does he get a toaster outta' the deal too?? Toasters are a touchy subject with me. When my friend told me 20 years ago that he had just spent 200 pounds on a toaster, I knew I wasn't going to fit in well with modern society ... what the ...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 15, 2018 19:32:54 GMT -5
It's probly just expressing it's feminine side....Oops! Did I say that out loud? Lots of people can be illogical and unreasonable but I don't think that condition is gender related Whereas irrational numbers go on forever without repeating (unlike lots of people ) Nothing like a well-positioned decimal point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 11:53:04 GMT -5
Experiencing is either a fundamental quality of God/Self, or it is a questionable appearance, or it would have to be absolute Truth. You consider experiencing to be absolute Truth? T here is no 'literal' meaning of 'consciousness', because it's an abstract concept...even scientists don't understand it well. There is a consensus understanding of consciousness i.e that consciousness is present in certain beings as a result of particular physical characteristics. The spiritual understanding is that this is not the case, instead...consciousness is fundamental to all life forms. It's the same 'consciousness', just a different understanding associated with it. Yes, that's a point I have been making early on as well, and that point has been turned on its head and then been used as a strawman to discredit the realization that everything is alive/conscious. The realization is not that everything is consciousness. The realization is that everything is alive and conscious, that's what is seen directly. Mind will then turn that into 'consciousness is all there is' in order to make sense of it, which is fine with me as long as it is clear that that is just an abstraction of the actual realization and not the actual realization itself. Now, since to Figgles it is inconceivable that one could actually see directly that everything is alive instead of the lifelessness of the objectified world (aka appearances) everyone is used to (aka from the perspective of self), what she heard was that the realization was that 'everything is consciousness' and then mind turned that into 'and therefore everything must be conscious' when in reality it is exactly the other way around. I never said those words. Enigma later picked up on that and that's what got him into trouble (giraffing). And it seems that giraffe is still alive and well, even though it has gone into hiding. You definitely used "it's all consciousness" to arrive at a 'therefore' conclusion at the inception of this argument. You called it 'logic 101.'
I'm going to post a quote to prove I'm not 'giraffing.' I think you actually asked that of folks when you first set up your mod rules....?
You see, at the onset of this conversation you were suggesting that by virtue of knowing it's all Consciousness, it was a no brainer that each appearing object was therefore, conscious.
That's why I was confused when following that, you started talking about there being a CC/realization that illuminated all appearing objects to be conscious...and it was from there, in tandem with seeing 'no separation,' that you were then able to say, "it's all consciousness." That was backwards in terms of what seeing gave rise to the other from your first logic 101 assertion.
You also went on as I recall, to using the fact that I continued to engage appearing folks as 'if' they were conscious to suggest that I really wasn't absent that certain knowing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 11:54:33 GMT -5
But you agree with me that existence of other view point can't be known, Said that, how is it possible that you understood? You are also speculating,eh? while you are speculating, how do you know awareness is simultaneously look at more than one perception?I don't, but I don't have to figure out how it can. It's not a question that arises for me because I don't personalize the impersonal. Yes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 12:00:01 GMT -5
Well, you have been told that the question of whether 'others are perceiving' is misconceived, but the fact that you still have the question shows that it hasn't been understood 'why' it is misconceived. Yes, I can believe that Reefs said that the totality is alive, and that perceiving/experiencing is a given, but that's not the same as him arguing that ''appearing people are actually experiencing'', because those very words are misconceived from within the context of having had the kensho realization/experience. Simply, he would argue for a formless and essential aliveness. Your description at the end comes across as if you are carrying a philosophical understanding around with you on a moment by moment basis. Like I said, I experience a formless and essential aliveness that it is present within all expressions. That's pretty simple, right? Now compare that with what you just told me. You started off by saying you do experience that, but then you went on to say that you experience shadows and singular natures and appearances. If you don't mean o convey that, can you describe your experience more simply? Is it dreamy? Is it empty? Is it Truthy? Is it appearancy? If you consider experiencing to be 'self-evident', does that mean you consider it to be Absolute Truth? Also note, that you contain the self-evident nature of experiencing to 'yourself'. I don't necessarily have a problem with you saying that experiencing is 'self-evident', but I don't contain experiencing to 'myself'. I know experiencing to be whole, just as I know consciousness, knowing, awareness to be whole. In future, if you mean to convey a 'zero quality', could you use the word 'cabbage'? It would be interesting to see! If you don't use it, for now, I will assume that you are conveying a quality. Right. That's the other giraffe. And I now understand why she necessarily has to phrase it that way (and thereby totally mangling my message). Because she has to make sense of it from the perspective of self. And that's the only way that it makes sense. I am phrasing it that way, because that was the initial assertion that you continue to argue against...isn't it?
Those of us who say we don't know, have never wavered in terms of what we're saying. We don't know if appearing people are experiencing/perceiving. But there seems to be some wavering going on amidst those who say they do.
What is it exactly that you DO know? I've asked you several times now to explicitly say.
Again, does this Kensho/CC experience/realization, have you coming away knowing for certain that folks appearing within your experience, are actually perceiving/experiencing?
Yes, or no? You could clear this up with one word.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 12:05:43 GMT -5
Okay, now I get it. What you are saying is, given her specific method of realization (skepticism), if she would really follow thru and be true to her method/process, she wouldn't just stop there. She would have to go further. This doesn't mean that you suggest that it would be reasonable to doubt it per se, it just means that her specific method of realization would actually require her to doubt it, no matter how absurd it may seem otherwise. But she won't do it. Did I get this right? No. Andrew really is suggesting that "Being" itself, the knowing of existence itself, should be questioned. I've never doubted that "I am"/existence itself. I took issue with the specific wording of "Do you exist" because I saw the propensity there for folks to conceptualize the 'you', precisely how Andrew does when he hears me say "I am/I exist/existence is".... at that time, I felt it wasn't the most accurate way to point to the knowing of 'unfettered Being/existence.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 12:12:45 GMT -5
How could it not? 'Infinite' doesn't mean 'large', it means immeasurable, unlimited, countless. If 'oneness' is the case (unlimited, without boundary), then what is expressed AS 'oneness' must also be unlimited, without boundary.As spiritual-solipsists would have it, what is expressed as oneness might be limited, boundaried and measurable to what is appearing in just one POP. That's not oneness! That's finiteness and limitedness! Even 10 POP's is finiteness/limitedness. Don't get me wrong, folks are entitled to believe that finiteness/limitedness is the actuality of 'This' or MIGHT be the actuality of 'This'. I can't prove them wrong. But I would say that spirituality points to oneness, not finiteness/limitedness, and oneness is accepted as true. The opposite is true. The expression of boundlessness is necessarily bounded; limited. You're making an irrational connection between boundlessness and the number of bounded expressions. Boundless Intelligence doesn't have to express at all. The number of expressions can be zero. You also don't understand the meaning of oneness.Yup. Boundless expresses via 'a bind/limit.'
Eggzacktly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2018 12:21:58 GMT -5
Where does the hand end and the brush begin? That's the kind of questions you should be asking. Ramana said that both the jnani and the ajnani say "I am the body". If one asks where the hand begins and ends it will turn out there is no hand, and thus no question of its being alive or aware. Only if we accept the hand do we get the question of whether “it” is aware.
Ramana said the jnani says “I am the body” as a provisional teaching... in fact there cannot be said to be any body, or any I. Exactly.
Reefs has said it can be realized through 'the impersonal perspective,' where it is seen that there really is no other, that 'otherness' as well as 'thingness' is just an illusion, that appearing objects are actually consciously aware/alive.
That sounds to me as though he is saying that first you see there are no objects, then you see that appearing objects actually 'are' consciously aware/alive. It sounds to me like a gross contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2018 12:25:31 GMT -5
Yes, that's a point I have been making early on as well, and that point has been turned on its head and then been used as a strawman to discredit the realization that everything is alive/conscious. The realization is not that everything is consciousness. The realization is that everything is alive and conscious, that's what is seen directly. Mind will then turn that into 'consciousness is all there is' in order to make sense of it, which is fine with me as long as it is clear that that is just an abstraction of the actual realization and not the actual realization itself. Now, since to Figgles it is inconceivable that one could actually see directly that everything is alive instead of the lifelessness of the objectified world (aka appearances) everyone is used to (aka from the perspective of self), what she heard was that the realization was that 'everything is consciousness' and then mind turned that into 'and therefore everything must be conscious' when in reality it is exactly the other way around. I never said those words. Enigma later picked up on that and that's what got him into trouble (giraffing). And it seems that giraffe is still alive and well, even though it has gone into hiding. You definitely used "it's all consciousness" to arrive at a 'therefore' conclusion at the inception of this argument. You called it 'logic 101.'
I'm going to post a quote to prove I'm not 'giraffing.' I think you actually asked that of folks when you first set up your mod rules....? You see, at the onset of this conversation you were suggesting that by virtue of knowing it's all Consciousness, it was a no brainer that each appearing object was therefore, conscious. That's why I was confused when following that, you started talking about there being a CC/realization that illuminated all appearing objects to be conscious...and it was from there, in tandem with seeing 'no separation,' that you were then able to say, "it's all consciousness." That was backwards in terms of what seeing gave rise to the other from your first logic 101 assertion.
You also went on as I recall, to using the fact that I continued to engage appearing folks as 'if' they were conscious to suggest that I really wasn't absent that certain knowing.
You just can't help yourself, can you? If you want to show that you are not giraffing, then you have to show a quote with those exact words. And besides, the context of the quote you posted seems to be that there are no others, that there is only Self. That's a different context. So basically what you've done here is you've tried to disprove your giraffing with another giraffe. Shall I send you back to your forum now? Or are you finally willing to agree to disagree and let this go? Hmmm...
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 17, 2018 12:28:08 GMT -5
You definitely used "it's all consciousness" to arrive at a 'therefore' conclusion at the inception of this argument. You called it 'logic 101.'
I'm going to post a quote to prove I'm not 'giraffing.' I think you actually asked that of folks when you first set up your mod rules....? You see, at the onset of this conversation you were suggesting that by virtue of knowing it's all Consciousness, it was a no brainer that each appearing object was therefore, conscious. That's why I was confused when following that, you started talking about there being a CC/realization that illuminated all appearing objects to be conscious...and it was from there, in tandem with seeing 'no separation,' that you were then able to say, "it's all consciousness." That was backwards in terms of what seeing gave rise to the other from your first logic 101 assertion.
You also went on as I recall, to using the fact that I continued to engage appearing folks as 'if' they were conscious to suggest that I really wasn't absent that certain knowing.
You just can't help yourself, can you? If you want to show that you are not giraffing, then you have to show a quote with those exact words. And besides, the context of the quote you posted seems to be that there are no others, that there is only Self. That's a different context. So basically what you've done here is you've tried to disprove your giraffing with another giraffe. Shall I send you back to your forum now? Or are you finally willing to agree to disagree and let this go? Hmmm... I have to say, I find this threatening use of your moderation powers in a discussion of which you are a part very distasteful. It takes two to tango. If you don’t like talking with Fig, why not disengage yourself?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 17, 2018 12:29:16 GMT -5
Yes, that's a point I have been making early on as well, and that point has been turned on its head and then been used as a strawman to discredit the realization that everything is alive/conscious. The realization is not that everything is consciousness. The realization is that everything is alive and conscious, that's what is seen directly. Mind will then turn that into 'consciousness is all there is' in order to make sense of it, which is fine with me as long as it is clear that that is just an abstraction of the actual realization and not the actual realization itself. Now, since to Figgles it is inconceivable that one could actually see directly that everything is alive instead of the lifelessness of the objectified world (aka appearances) everyone is used to (aka from the perspective of self), what she heard was that the realization was that 'everything is consciousness' and then mind turned that into 'and therefore everything must be conscious' when in reality it is exactly the other way around. I never said those words. Enigma later picked up on that and that's what got him into trouble (giraffing). And it seems that giraffe is still alive and well, even though it has gone into hiding. Yes. The basic position you are offering is simple, and is beyond mind in the sense that you are speaking about an essential/formless 'aliveness' (or pick a different word), and so the invitation is to look beyond thingness. However, it is inevitable that during a long period of conversation, there are subtle mis-quotings, misunderstandings, misrepresentations and twisting of words. I'm not saying it's deliberate as much as an unfortunate aspect of long conversation. Like chinese whispers I guess. For example, talking about an essential/formless 'aliveness', and then being asked to talk about paperclips, has missed the initial point. But then explaining how the point has been missed, usually creates another sidetrack and a whole new load of concepts to be addressed. Well, it's been interesting comparing notes with you. Approaching it from an entirely philosophical perspective seems to have its advantages where there's a lack of reference.
|
|